ABSTRACT
The concept of the precautionary principle (PP) has emerged as a major concept in the arena of environmental policy (for example, Principle 15 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992), and is especially significant in discussions and practices concerning the risks from genetically modified (GM) crops. Despite this, the concept of the PP has no universal definition and is sometimes criticised (Alder 2000; Morris 2000) because of the vagueness of its definition and usage. Public debates about genetic modification usually revolve around the extent to which policies and practices should exercise precaution. Academic discussion frames such debates as considering the extent to which the ‘precautionary principle’ should be exercised. This latter is the principle which states that society should seek to avoid environmental and social damage by careful forward planning, blocking the flow of potentially harmful activities. The PP has come into stark focus in the GM debate through the UK
government funded Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) Programme. This programme was set up to test some of the effects of growing GM in external environments. It has been developed and conducted by groups or representative bodies, including the government, the biotechnology industry, some scientists and some farmers, whilst others, such as pressure groups, organic farmers and many lay people, have been strongly opposed. The FSE has therefore created a situation where the risks, costs and benefits of GM are fiercely contested. Furthermore, the FSE programme has been frequently disrupted through the direct action of protestors who have attempted to prevent or damage individual trials, most notoriously through uprooting crops. A number of these actions have led to arrests and charges, and a few to subsequent prosecutions in the criminal courts. The PP has featured prominently in documentation, discussion and as a basis or justification for action in some of these trials. The court represents a core social setting where society deals with pro-
blems. It is a highly controlled environment in which judge and jury hear
arguments constructed by the Prosecution and the Defence, before a judgment is reached. The apparent equity of this process provides a potential route for society to clarify difficult concepts. In this light, it seems highly appropriate to examine how the concept of the PP fares in the courtroom setting. To our knowledge, no other studies have attempted a similar investigation of the precautionary principle in UK court cases.
